Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra-Macro Lens Review
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra-Macro Lens Review
Been using this lens since about April, finally time permits me to write a review article. Published on my blog site.
I provide some photos and go through various aspects of the lens in detail. Any recommendations would be appreciated! First time doing this type of thing.
https://macrocosmosblog.wordpress.com/2 ... rm-review/
Thanks! Let me know if there's any factual errors or confusion in language.
I provide some photos and go through various aspects of the lens in detail. Any recommendations would be appreciated! First time doing this type of thing.
https://macrocosmosblog.wordpress.com/2 ... rm-review/
Thanks! Let me know if there's any factual errors or confusion in language.
That's a nice review (and I enjoyed learning the secret abilities of the Mitu 10x )
One thing that surprised me is that you say diffraction becomes noticeable at f/5.6 for all magnifications. Diffraction is proportional to effective aperture, which increases rapidly with magnification. So the amount of diffraction at marked f5.6 should be greater at 5x than at 2.5x, and it should show up at wider apertures at 5x than at 2.5x. Can you check your observation?
One thing that surprised me is that you say diffraction becomes noticeable at f/5.6 for all magnifications. Diffraction is proportional to effective aperture, which increases rapidly with magnification. So the amount of diffraction at marked f5.6 should be greater at 5x than at 2.5x, and it should show up at wider apertures at 5x than at 2.5x. Can you check your observation?
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Yeah, you're right. It could just be the lens being softer at f/5.6. It is a lot worse at f/5.6 and beyond, as illustrated by the wafer test shots. Whether this is due to diffraction or just softness in general requires some careful analysis. I'll make a followup with some test charts, setting up the shots is kind of an annoyance, as I don't have a good enough testing rig and ensuring that the chart is parallel to the sensor is tricky. The test could be misleading, I'm probably way too snobbish but that's what mathematics has done to meLou Jost wrote:That's a nice review (and I enjoyed learning the secret abilities of the Mitu 10x )
One thing that surprised me is that you say diffraction becomes noticeable at f/5.6 for all magnifications. Diffraction is proportional to effective aperture, which increases rapidly with magnification. So the amount of diffraction at marked f5.6 should be greater at 5x than at 2.5x, and it should show up at wider apertures at 5x than at 2.5x. Can you check your observation?
Absolutely correct.Adalbert wrote:Hello Daniel,
Very nice test, many thanks!
Actually I was interested in the comparison with the Mitty 5x. But you didn’t comment the results.
In my opinion Laowa is really good at 2.8 but Mitty is much better.
BR, ADi
You're right, I should have commented on the results. I'll update the post with some comments.
The Mitty hands down wins. It does always depend on the tube lens being used, I believe the tester was using a Raynox. I will ask him. But yeah at 5x, it is hard to beat the mitty. The mitty is a bit sharper, and excels in the control of CA and of course, resolution. I would even suggest that the mitty beats the Laowa when pushed down to 4x or even 3x; despite the vignetting.
399 is great price, however if one has connections in Japan, the mitty 5x can be had new for about 450-500 or so. Not inclusive of all forms of robbery and shipping. If any photomacrographers have the opportunity to travel to Japan, it's worth picking up new mittys. Gambling on fleabay isn't really fun.
was late last night, since the pic was done with a negative Resolution Chart it was overexposed. Redone with 2 stops lesser exposure it Looks much better. I have no time for extensive testing but @2.5 I can distinguish the same fine patterns than @5xLou Jost wrote:I don't recall seeing so much CA on mine, though I used a natural target with much less contrast.
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Thanks for the post! Is that a Thorlabs target? How did you set yours up? I have a hard time getting mine to be perfectly parallel with the image sensor.lothman wrote:was late last night, since the pic was done with a negative Resolution Chart it was overexposed. Redone with 2 stops lesser exposure it Looks much better. I have no time for extensive testing but @2.5 I can distinguish the same fine patterns than @5xLou Jost wrote:I don't recall seeing so much CA on mine, though I used a natural target with much less contrast.
It is this target Ebay LinkMacro_Cosmos wrote: Thanks for the post! Is that a Thorlabs target? How did you set yours up? I have a hard time getting mine to be perfectly parallel with the image sensor.
Yeah adjusting is quite some effort
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Is that fungus of some sort? Looks kind of appetising!lothman wrote:@5x f between 2,8 and 4 click, 55 images:
and a crop
This was also a quick test, but @5x I think there is empty magnification, at least at the Sony A7riii.
What do you mean by empty magnification? It looks quite okay to me, mine wouldn't be better or worse.
no no fungus it is a burn match. With empty magnification I mean that at 5x the picture is bigger but does not have more information, so at pixel level it looks somehow soft. On the resolution target the finest detail I could distinguish was the same at 5x and 2.5x on my limited setup. Yesterday I handed the lens back to my friend so I cannot do further tests.
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Like your subject choice Lothman, lots of nice details and textures.lothman wrote:no no fungus it is a burn match. With empty magnification I mean that at 5x the picture is bigger but does not have more information, so at pixel level it looks somehow soft. On the resolution target the finest detail I could distinguish was the same at 5x and 2.5x on my limited setup. Yesterday I handed the lens back to my friend so I cannot du further tests.
I need to borrow the idea sometime.